Open 289 - Hard Boiled - Game over.

[DarthYoshi]

Hi, everyone. Time for some obligatory opening questions--

What time zone are you in?

RVS or RQS? Why?

What is your experience level with Mafia?

How active can we expect you to be?

To answer my own questions, I'm on Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8). I like both RVS and RQS--I think they can be a both-and rather than an either-or, so this post will contain a vote as well. I'm relatively new to MafiaScum (only one completed game under my belt, plus one where I've been NKed and two more where I'm still alive), but used to play Mafia offsite many years ago. I try to be fairly active--you can generally count on me to post every day, sometimes more if I have a day off from both work and school.

And,

Vote: Umbrage.

For having a name too similar to the name of a godawful Harry Potter character.

[DarthYoshi]

@ConSpiracy: Voting a player who already has two RVS votes on them, but without giving a reason for the vote (RVS or otherwise)? Sketch.

Unvote. Vote: ConSpiracy.

@Krazy: I've never played a game with Ythan. Why should we be policy lynching him?

@Quaraoth: The Blazers suck, but Portland rules (I lived there for four years before moving to Bezerkeley). (Cue Fred Armisen singing, "The dream of the '90s is alive in Portland...")

[DarthYoshi]

Abelcain:

and then you're trying to subliminally tell to us to get rid of ConSpiracy too?

I can't tell if this is serious or not. Ordinarily, I'd say no, but the tone of the rest of your post seems serious, so I can't tell if your vote is serious or not. Please clarify.

[DarthYoshi]

@Conspiracy--first, why the need to exit us out of RVS? Second, why the need to do so with an unexplained bandwagon vote?

@Snake Eyes--why are you defending Conspiracy so hard?

@Umbrage--do you plan on making a vote at some point that doesn't look like an OMGUS vote?

@Krazy--so you're going to change your reasons for a vote just to keep a vote on a person you don't like? Lamesauce.

@Abelcain--not sure I liked your tactic, but I agree with your assessment of Krazy in #36.

[DarthYoshi]

Snake Eyes defends Conspiracy:

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward.

Snake Eyes sez:

Not so much defending Conspiracy.

Um, right.

Snake Eyes:

The whole idea of a premature bandwagon is a fallacy.

How so?

More Snake Eyes:

There's definitely an unnatural player relation there, and should Umbrage flip scum, I'd start looking for his scumbuddies in xtoxm

Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science.

Also, why do you have a town read on Conspiracy?

Krazy:

What gave you the impression I don't like Ythan?

Your ISO, brief though it is, certainly gives the impression that you don't particularly care for him. If my characterization was inaccurate, my heartiest apologies.

Krazy:

Do you have a problem with my current vote on Ythan?

Yes.

Krazy:

You have no problem with him not voting?

Not as much as you apparently do.

Krazy:

Are you now ignoring both non-votes or being selective?

Neither. Commenting on every single thing is something I have neither the time or inclination to do. Tell me why him not RVSing is scummy. If you want me to hop onto that wagon, convince me.

[DarthYoshi]

@Krazy: Right now, your vote just looks like an attempt to make it look like you weren’t tunneling on Ythan. Which you were. I completely agree that the town should be pressing lurkers to participate, but you still seem to really only care about one lurker.

Krazy:

He completely ignored my query about Ythan, which makes him tunneling already if nothing else

Pot, kettle, black, yada yada yada. Also, I’m basically ignoring posts #84-117, because I don’t care remotely enough about your’s and Ythan’s schoolyard screaming match to read those walls.

Snake Eyes:

Votes and bandwagons give the discussion context. You'd never get anywhere without votes. Do you not agree?

With votes, sure. There’s a reason RVS exists. But there is also a reason why it is called RVS and not RBS.

Snake Eyes:

Just a slight townie vibe, from his initial questioning of Umbrage.

What specifically about his questioning of Umbrage gave you a townie vibe?

Vordark:

Vordark: Why wouldn't we want to move out of RVS and into meaningful discussion?

Hadn’t heard from a number of players at that point, but I think this is a more fast-paced game than I was either feeling or anticipating, so at this point, I don’t really care. Also—what exactly are you seeing as a chainsaw? You’re saying my behavior is ‘odd’ and not really saying anything as to why.

Umbrage’s #66: o.O #69, too, now that I think of it. Chill the f**k out, man. That you are reacting the way you are makes me think your votes really were OMGUS, and it doesn’t make you look good.

@Ythan: At what point can we expect your thoughts on individual players (aside from Krazy)?

Vordark:

The basic idea of doing something most would consider scummy as some sort of ploy or gambit is as likely to confuse and distract the town as it is to gain any real insight. If such a tactic is accepted by the town as legit, then it opens the door for anyone to say "Oh, that was just a gambit" when called on something scummy. True, your specific case, in isolation, is almost certainly harmless, but any time that reasoning is employed, I think it should be attacked.

You do realize there has already been a fair amount of people explaining away potentially odd actions and votes with, "Oh, it was a ploy to get a reaction?"

@Town as a whole--though I was uneasy with CS’s vote on Umbrage, he hasn’t done anything after that to really set off my scumdar, so my read on him is mostly neutral. My vote is better served elsewhere atm.

Unvote. Vote: Krazy.

Your play so far has been hellaciously anti-town, regardless of your alignment.

[DarthYoshi]

Wow, you people talk a lot.

Krazy:

AKA: ur a hypocrite, but also tl;dr. Usually you can make one criticism or the other, Darth, not both

Why not both?

Krazy:

but I also encourage you to actually back up your accusation.

Do you really want me to compile a list of every single player who saw the irony in you making a tunneling accusation?

Krazy:

tl;dr is anti-town too.

Tl:dr had less to do with it. I didn’t read those posts because I like feeling happy about life.

Krazy:

Should we have a "who can be more anti-town" contest?

No. I’m pretty sure you’d kick my ass.

Krazy:

but is your case ever going to be anything other than tl;dr?

My motives for voting you also included the tunneling on Ythan (including, at that point, no desire to scumhunt on anyone else) as well as suggesting a policy lynch for no reason at the outset of D1. All in all, very anti-town play.

Krazy:

How about this Darth: Instead of QQing about my quote war with him, why don't you ask him a few more questions yourself? Again, both you and Ythan can QQ about me "tunneling" on him, but that doesn't excuse you from not engaging him at all.

I did. I asked him when we could expect non-Krazy related content from him, and he basically shrugged off the question. Which I didn’t like. I’m paying attention to everyone, not just you.

All of that being said—I actually am liking your attempts to scumhunt on the lurkers, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there is a scum or two there, just hanging out while the town points fingers at one another. Your responses to me are such that I am fine with my vote remaining where it is for the time being, however.

@Xtoxm—what about Ythan’s exchange looked complacent for him? I don’t know what ‘complacent’ Ythan looks like versus ‘not complacent’ Ythan. Also, thoughts on the Umbrage wagon, pleeze.

@Ythan--do you have any suspects after Umbrage? If so, who and why?

@Umbrage—I have a couple problems with your #159. First, if your case on Snake Eyes is “getting stronger,” then why is your vote on TBL and not Snake Eyes?

Also,

When Snake Eyes attacked me, he did so under the assumption that CS is town, an assumption I see no basis for, and

for which he has provided none.

Emphasis mine.

Snake's #134:

in a way that was likely to bring attention to him. There's little scum motivation to do so, but there is a pretty clear town motive.

Did you just miss this or what? What do you think of this response?

In other news…

Krazy:

Would you please explain why he does not?

^This. Once LurkerUsername explains why he thinks I don’t look like town, I’ll be happy to respond.

And as a parting shot, this thread needs more Xotxm, TBL, Quaraoth, and Iamausername.

[DarthYoshi]

Umbrage--Iamusername's vote is on me, not you.

[DarthYoshi]

EBWOP: nevermind, that is an outdated votecount.

[DarthYoshi]

Krazy:

UNLIKE Darth, goes on to imply that Umbrage et.al is also tl;dr.

I noticed this too. I don’t know why the Umbrage-related material is tl:dr. The caps rage makes it not pleasant reading either, but with a wagon that size that quickly, attention should be paid. I forget who said it, but I agree that Umbrage flailing is kind of a null tell, as town are apt to get that frustrated too; I am more interested in his voting and occasional omissions in replying to his accusers.

@Umbrage: Not liking that you're ignoring my press about Snake Eyes' reply to you.

Also, I do think my vote and dialogue with Krazy has indeed run its course. Krazy is actually helping the town now. I think I can and should re-deploy my vote. (ZOMG, he's drawing attention to his vote again! Obvscum! Obvscum!)

Unvote. Vote: Xotxm.

Lurking makes me a sad panda.

Now, for Vordark’s ISO wall of me…no way around it, my reply is also going to be a wall. My apologies in advance. All quotes come from Vordark unless otherwise noted.

Summary for tl:dr folks: Vordark thinks I've spent too much time engaging Krazy, and that I have some unhelpful beliefs about mafia theory. I think that putting pressure on Krazy was the right move, and he is in fact now behaving in a much more townish manner. I don't think I was unduly calling attention to my votes; I think saying my read has changed on someone who I had my vote on is a fairly normal thing to do.

I don't like this post very much. The question "why the need to exit us out of RVS" doesn't vibe as town at all to me. The sooner we're out of RVS and into discussion and debate, the better. Anything that moves us along in that regard is better and I can't think why someone town would disagree.

I already explained my reasoning—that we hadn’t heard from much of the town when we exited RVS. Do you actually want to respond to that, as opposed to openly supposing why someone would ask about the need to exit RVS?

The first part is DY's case that SE is defending CS. Two quotes and an "Um, right". Again, not a defense.

You say it isn’t without explaining why. I say it is without explaining why (although I feel like a sentence that attempts to attribute town motive to a person kinda constitutes defending them…odd, I know). Looks like we’re tied.

The "Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science" comment is strange as well. SE is talking about what happens "should Umbrage flip scum". It is also natural, and necessary, to look for relationships between the players as early as possible. All in all, it's a suspicious sentence.

Yeah, there totally is not any scum motivation in insinuating relationships between players. Totally not a way to tee up future (mis)lynches.

I personally think that hypothesizing about relationships so early in the game needs to be taken with a few grains of salt. Associative tells only become tells usually when flips have occurred. Meta me, and you’ll see I hold to this belief as town.

He also notes "Commenting on every single thing is something I have neither the time or inclination to do", but he ends up spending much more time engaging Krazy that I think is reasonable.

If my vote is on someone because I’m scumhunting them, I’m probably going to spend a little more time replying to their posts, no?

Also, this is just fluff. What is “reasonable” is often completely subjective. I’m clearly engaging other players as well, if you want to accuse me of tunneling, then just come out and say it.

This part of the post just strikes me as egging him on.

So why aren’t you calling out the other umpteen players who pointed out said irony?

but he does keep engaging Krazy.

So…what you’re saying is, putting concerted pressure on a player who has been behaving anti-town is bad? Because that’s sure what it looks like you’re saying.

The first part of this snippet and the first sentence of the last paragraph strike me as odd when taken together. The first bit remains critical of CS's early bandwagon vote on Umbrage, but the sentence I indicated appears to back off that opinion with "I think this is a more fast-paced game than I was either feeling or anticipating". I'm wondering which it is.

How exactly are those sentiments mutually exclusive?

I think any vote outside of the RVS needs at least a few words of explanation as to why you are voting forsomeone, but I find it suspicious when someone makes a show of why they are taking it off of someone when they move it. It's worrying about appearances and that's something more likely to come from scum than town.

So, when I don’t think someone is as scummy as I originally thought, I should just not mention that to the town? That’s just bad play right there. Especially if you think it is important for players to be looking for relationships and connections (which you clearly do). If that’s the case, then the town needs to know where I stand on the guy I just had my vote on.

DY's reply was unnecessary and I think anyone that really wanted to focus the town would have let Krazy's comments slide,

So, when the person I am accusing of being scum encourages me to “back up my accusation,” I should instead let it slide?

Iamusername:

I was more concerned about the fact that he is self-admittedly voting Krazy for reasons that have nothing to do with his alignment

So, using my vote to try to determine if someone’s anti-town play is scummy or just bad town is…bad? Ooooooookay. BTW, do you actually plan on weighing in on the rest of the game? You’re clearly reading the thread, but are saying very little.

[DarthYoshi]

Iamusername is letting Vordark do all the heavy lifting for him in actually trying to paint me as scummy (and apparently, I'm not the only one to notice). As such, I'll be replying almost entirely to Vordark here. All quotes are from him unless otherwise noted.

I already responded and pointed out the contradiction I see. You even quote my response below. It is disingenuous to claim that I have not.

Yeah, and then you, in so many words, repeated your original line to my response.

I have already explained this too. Interesting.

Dude, I can't explain it any other way--ascribing town motive to someone who is being accused is, in fact, defending them, because noting town motive (at a minimum implicitly) says you don't think they're scummy. That's simply true, let this one go.

Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

I am unfamiliar with this fallacy. Please explain.

Also your comment that looking at relationships so early in the game "needs to be taken with a few grains of salt" is backing off your earlier, much stronger statement that it is "junk science". Discussing associative tells before a flip is useful, if for no other reason than making it easier to pick out after a flip.

Not really. The idiom is "take it with a grain of salt" in order to express skepticism. By saying a few grains of salt, I am indicating substantial amounts of skepticism. One may view junk science with substantial amounts of skepticism. This is a red herring at best.

I would also like to point out that your noting SE's "defense" of CS is no different. You are trying to put a focus on the relationship there every time you call it a "defense", and every time you press SE on the point. Why is it scum hunting when you do it, junk science when others do it?

I never implied the existence of a scumpair.

That defense only works if we believe your motive is scum hunting. I am unconvinced at this point.

Nah-uh!

FTFY.

I am not accusing you of tunneling. I am questioning whether your engaging of Krazy is an attempt to keep the distraction going. I believe I made that clear. It is interesting that you are trying to re-frame it as an accusation of tunneling.

You accused me of "engaging" Krazy far more than is "reasonable." Last time I checked, that would constitute "tunneling." What I don't understand is how it is pro-town to characterize pressing an at-the-time anti-town player as a "distraction." As Krazy's play picked up, my focus began to shift.

My pointing out your behavior now does not preclude my pointing out the behavior of others if I see the need once I have ISO'd them. It is interesting that you are asking this question as a defense when I've made it clear that you are my first ISO of the day, not my only.

I'm calling shenanigans here. You did two ISOs, and the other was of one of the least active players in the game. So, if you're using "you aren't the only one I ISOed" as a defense, then yeah, I think my question is a legitimate one. Besides, you're posting frequently enough in real time that I assume you caught all the other players pointing out Krazy's ironic tunneling accusation--why didn't you just call it out then? At this point, your case on me is really contrived and mostly grasping for straws.

Again, this statement only works if we assume you have a town motive. An equally viable explanation for the events is that you are attempting to keep the Krazy train running as a distraction.

I think I've already addressed this.

I believe that is self-evident.

Not to me.

Scum worry more about appearances than town, and are much more likely to feel the need to explain the "little things" than town is.

Votes aren't "little things." This is a catch-22--it looks bad if one doesn't explain their vote (see also: Iamusername), but it looks bad if one does explain their vote too?

@Umbrage: If/when I flip, you'll see how much of a junk science hunting for scumbuddies so early on D1 really is. Your bussing suspicion is off.

@Quaraoth: It sounds like you're backtracking from your pro-town read on me. Is that because of Vordark's case, or are there other reasons?

[DarthYoshi]

I was referring to your bussing suspicion of me + Vordark. Sorry for being unclear.

[DarthYoshi]

Summary for tl:dr folks: Vordark believes that I am defending myself primarily through misrepresentation and personal attacks. I do not believe that to be the case, and that we have different definitions of what it means to defend someone or to tunnel, while his timeline on my Krazy scumhunting isn't fully accurate. I also clarify that my philosophy regarding associative tells for determining scumpairs while scumhunting as bad play before flips. I do not believe associative tells are unreliable per se, though this seems to be what Vordark suspects I think.

Voldark:

DarthYoshi wrote:
I have already explained this too. Interesting.


Dude, I can't explain it any other way--ascribing town motive to someone who is being accused is, in fact, defending them, because noting town motive (at a minimum implicitly) says you don't think they're scummy. That's simply true, let this one go.


You are using a definition of the word "defense" that covers every single person who ever says anything that approaches "I'm leaning town on so-and-so". That's not a particularly useful definition.

Why isn't it useful? Defenses can be both subtle and, well, less subtle.

Voldark:

DarthYoshi wrote:
Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.


I am unfamiliar with this fallacy. Please explain.


There's an article on the wiki and I'm sure the Googles can help you.

Teeing up mislynches has nothing to do with the fallacy of the excluded middle. It is scum misrepping a connection with a player in order to get that player mislynched. It's manipulation, not a fallacy.

Also your comment that looking at relationships so early in the game "needs to be taken with a few grains of salt" is backing off your earlier, much stronger statement that it is "junk science". Discussing associative tells before a flip is useful, if for no other reason than making it easier to pick out after a flip.


Not really. The idiom is "take it with a grain of salt" in order to express skepticism. By saying a few grains of salt, I am indicating substantial amounts of skepticism. One may view junk science with substantial amounts of skepticism. This is a red herring at best.


I note your lack of a comment concerning the second sentence you quote.

And I note your lack of a comment regarding the first sentence. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm saying that I don't think its effective compared to other scumhunting tactics

until there have been flips

. If you need help reminding yourself of associations, make a comment in notes that you keep? Once flips occur, associative tells become far more valuable, and can actually act as scumtells on their own. This is what I have been saying all along.

I would also like to point out that your noting SE's "defense" of CS is no different. You are trying to put a focus on the relationship there every time you call it a "defense", and every time you press SE on the point. Why is it scum hunting when you do it, junk science when others do it?


I never implied the existence of a scumpair.


This would be a strawman. You are arguing against something I am not stating. You are attempting to establish a relationship between SE and CS every time you repeat the "defense" remarks. By your own reasoning, SE "defending" CS tells us nothing, so why continue to make the statement? If it does tell us something, why call it junk science?

Like I said above, my point all along is that searching for associative tells to determine scumpairs is ineffective play on D1. So, yeah, I'm going to be skeptical of "If so-and-so flips X, this-and-that will too" statements. For the purposes of scumhunting, searching for associative tells usually involves looking for a scumpair by definition. So, yeah, talking about the existence of a scumpair is not a strawman, it actually goes to the heart of the issue.

Also, I don't "continue" to make that statement, you keep bringing it up. I've moved on. Although I feel like at this point that CS has flaked on the game.

That defense only works if we believe your motive is scum hunting. I am unconvinced at this point. Nah-uh!


FTFY.


Ah, the good old appeal to emotion and personal attack. No actual remarks as to why you must be scum hunting or an attempt to show by a pattern of your actions that you are. Just this.

What about this is a personal attack (or even an AtE)? Calling it so doesn't make it so. I'm not calling you any names, I'm not cussing you out, I'm not getting upset (if anything, the tone in your post indicates that you are). I made a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that you are basically saying "Nah uh, I don't believe you" in so many words. What exactly am I supposed to say to that without being redundant?

I am not accusing you of tunneling. I am questioning whether your engaging of Krazy is an attempt to keep the distraction going. I believe I made that clear. It is interesting that you are trying to re-frame it as an accusation of tunneling.


You accused me of "engaging" Krazy far more than is "reasonable." Last time I checked, that would constitute "tunneling." What I don't understand is how it is pro-town to characterize pressing an at-the-time anti-town player as a "distraction." As Krazy's play picked up, my focus began to shift.


Tunneling is to focus on one player to the exclusion of others. You mentioned others. You also tried to keep Krazy posting by egging him on. Trying to characterize my statements as an accusation of tunneling is attempting to change the debate. Your statement "As Krazy's play picked up, my focus began to shift" is no more viable than "When I got called on my fueling the Krazy train, my focus began to shift". The timing fits just as well.

I think we just have different definitions of tunneling. It isn't an attempt to change the debate, wanting to know whether you accused me of tunneling is legitimate given what you wrote.

You're also misrepresenting the timing. Krazy let the matter go in #190. If I wanted to keep "egging him on," I could have when I posted in #193-94 when I thought the wrong votecount was posted. You didn't call me out until the following page.

I'm calling shenanigans here. You did two ISOs, and the other was of one of the least active players in the game. So, if you're using "you aren't the only one I ISOed" as a defense, then yeah, I think my question is a legitimate one. Besides, you're posting frequently enough in real time that I assume you caught all the other players pointing out Krazy's ironic tunneling accusation--why didn't you just call it out then? At this point, your case on me is really contrived and mostly grasping for straws.


I did four ISOs, not two. So there's one problem. "Why didn't you just call it out then?" is more redirection. There are many people in this game. We're at page 11. There are many walls of back and forth discussion. I will get to all of it eventually, that I haven't done so yet or haven't ISO'd someone's pet suspect is not information. That you are trying to push it as such continues to be interesting.

I guess I don't see ISOing a player with one post as really an ISO. In any case, all your ISOs were of nearly inactive players, so yeah, I still think my quesetion is legit. Other players are replying to material in real time--not all are posting ISOs like you--so it isn't redirection, especially when what you're calling me out for is something that a ton of other players have done, and surely you must have seen it, as not all of it came in walls either.

DarthYoshi wrote:
I believe that is self-evident.


Not to me.


Interesting. You chose not to include the second sentence there. That's the first part of a two sentence paragraph, the entirety of which is:

I believe that is self-evident. Can you explain your reasoning in that post more fully?


Can you answer my question now? Can you also tell us why you chose to deliberately avoid addressing that question to begin with?

I don't mean to get all grade-schoolish about this, I really don't--but I kinda asked you first when I asked how those sentiments were mutually exclusive. Saying that it was self evident was not an answer. So, it's ironic that you're complaining about me avoiding addressing your follow up question. In any case, I seriously don't get why they have to be mutually exclusive. I can feel uneasy about someone's moving-out-of-RVS vote, but in retrospect, see that the game was more fast paced than what I was used to. When I felt uneasy, I didn't know people would be posting so frequently--which is why I asked that exact question in my RQS post.

DarthYoshi wrote:
Scum worry more about appearances than town, and are much more likely to feel the need to explain the "little things" than town is.


Votes aren't "little things." This is a catch-22--it looks bad if one doesn't explain their vote (see also: Iamusername), but it looks bad if one does explain their vote too?


Another attempt to misrepresent what I said, and I've already explained the point twice. This is also bordering on argument through repetition.

I don't actually think you are adequately explaining how what I'm saying is a misrep, but maybe that's just me.

BTW, even if you think my FTFY was a personal attack (which I don't), that was the ONLY one I made. Saying I am "resorting to personal attacks" to defend myself is itself a misrep.

Finally,

I also note you don't quote in context, that is you do not include the original statements that mine are in reference to. It's a isolation tactic that makes it easier to misrepresent statements.

Meta me, you'll see I do that in all my games. I am prone to posting walls, and I try to make them be less wall-ish. However, since it is considered sub-optimal play by you, I am not doing so here.

[DarthYoshi]

EBWOP: Eesh, epic quote fail on my part. Those quotes start with my words, then Vordark's reply, which is what I am replying to in the above post. Sorry, everyone.

[DarthYoshi]

Er, the quotes start with Vordark, my reply in the middle, then Vordark's most recent post. Derp.

[DarthYoshi]

Abelcain:

You mean the way you and Umbrage have been insinuating (or outright declaring) a relationship between Snake and CS?

"Have been insinuating" makes it sound like I'm still doing so. As I said to Vordark, I gave up that line of inquiry many pages ago.

Abelcain:

Neither did Snake. He said there was an unnatural player relation, not that they were definitely a scumpair. Stop drawing an arbitrary line between what Snake said about Umbrage/xtoxm and what you're saying about Snake/CS. You're implying that there's an unnatural relation between Snake and CS too.

Again with the present tense. But now re-reading those quotes right next to each other, I'm inclined to concede this one to you.

Abelcain:

I think it's fantastic that you explain your side of the case in a patient, thoughtful way while making Vordark sound like he's unreasonable in his side of the argument. Normally this wouldn't bother me, but given the amount of TL;DR that's been thrown around in this topic I'm actually somewhat worried that people are going to take this seriously and not bother reading your posts.

This is a highly subjective interpretation of my summary. Vordark has shown no hesitation about calling me out on what he sees as misreps, and he can do so again here if he feels so inclined.

Abelcain:

So... are you admitting that you're scum using a manipulation and not a fallacy? Vordark said you were committing the fallacy by saying that people had to believe that the question was scummy or not scummy, and that Snake must think it wasn't scummy because there was a possibility, not a certainty, that it was town. You're right that teeing up mislynches via connection has nothing to do with the fallacy, but Vordark never said that either. Way to misrepresent what he said though by trying to attribute the fallacy to Snake, though.

Okay, wow. Cool your jets. Vordark's original bit was: "Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle." I misinterpreted that as him saying I mistakenly saw that fallacy in SE's post. Given that I didn't even know what that fallacy was when he cited it, me understanding how it is applied isn't going to be 100% at the get-go. Sorry.

I also never said that people had to believe the question was scummy or not scummy.

Abelcain:

So is it completely junk? Or is it just less effective? Because you're definitely not showing the same conviction that you were earlier.

Junk science is less effective than actual science. Junk science still has the possibility, however remote, of being right. And trying to guess scumteams before there have been flips has the possibility, however remote, of being right.

Abelcain:

That doesn't mean that you can't note associative tells. What's the difference if someone writes down the connection they see in their personal notes or if he posts it in the thread? If anything, I think it's better to post it in the thread, because that way it's been left behind if you happen to get NK'd night one.

Awesome. That doesn't contradict what I've been saying all along--that there can be scum motivation in talking about associative tells. Which is what I was worried about at first, arguably through confirmation bias. Which you yourself say you've done likewise in other games.

[DarthYoshi]

First, welcome, Regfan.

Xtoxm's vote of me is terrible, and it looks like I'm not the first to notice. He is still actively lurking, contributing no content, shrugging off questions addressed to him, voting arbitrarily, and as much admits that he's wagonhopping with his vote on me. I initially put my vote on him simply because of his lurking; now I am fine with it there for much more than just lurking. More people need to be voting for this guy.

I voted Yoshi before Vordark had expressed any suspicion of him, so I'm not sure how you can honestly describe it as 'piggy-backing'.

Your vote, such as it was, contained no substantive reasons or case for voting me. Since then, you've been letting Vordark do all of that.

Here is the problem; you voted Krazy for being 'anti-town', not for being scummy. You've never given any opinion on Krazy's alignment; you voted him as a form of punishment for bad play, once he adjusted his play to fit more in line with your standards of good play, you rescinded that punishment. Did you decide that Krazy was probably town because he conformed to your standards? I don't know. I don't even know if you thought he was town in the first place.

First, Ythan is right--it would have been scummy to leave my vote on a player who was now being pro-town.

Moreover, and I think I've already said this, when a player is exhibiting such anti-town behavior, I think it is a perfectly legitimate use of one's vote to utilize it in determining whether the player is scum or just playing a bad town game. I wasn't sure if he was town, either--that's the point. That's part of scumhunting. Your characterization of it as 'punishment' is bizarre--there's no tangible consequence to such punishment unless the player actually gets lynched. Doesn't sound like punishment to me.

I agree with none of this here. Particularly that DY has answered the questions posed to him "reasonably".

That you aren't giving reasons for either of these claims makes me think that confirmation bias may be affecting your play.

The fallacy of the excluded middle certainly applies. I state that looking for relationships between the players as early as possible is natural and necessary. DY runs to the far end of the spectrum and claims it has a scum motivation and is a way to tee up future mislynches. There is a wealth of possibilities in there that DY ignores as a debate tactic. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a touch of the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses mixed with sarcasm as an appeal to emotion (which may be the reason for some people's confusion), but the fallacy of the excluded middle is most applicable because DY is ignoring his earlier statement that looking for these relationships was simply not useful. Regardless, looked at from any angle, DY's argument here is a scumtell.

This ridiculousness has gone on long enough. Here's my original quote:

Yeah, there totally is not any scum motivation in insinuating relationships between players. Totally not a way to tee up future (mis)lynches.

I imagine from the tone of it that a touch of sarcasm is evident. I was pointing out the capacity for scum motivation in insinuating connections. I never said that it is scum motivated every time--that would be rushing to the other end of the spectrum and setting up said fallacy. If I didn't argue that it is always scum motivated, then the fallacy, I think, does not really apply.

PS: Don't think I didn't notice that you decided you didn't need to reply to my last wall to you, even when it contained a number of questions and suspicions about your scumhunting on me.

…. I hadn’t even posted between when I said I read you town and this post. Wtf!

Sorry 'bout that, for some reason, I thought you had.

[DarthYoshi]

Jeez, I really suck at quote tags. Messed one up at the top of this post. One of these days, I will wake up competent in all things quote tag-y.

[DarthYoshi]

Previously to this it was this post my Abelcain iso #6,12 but DY's new post really blows these out of the water; when I voted DY it was just voting for one of the 4 people that hadn't given me any town inclinations, now I feel that DY is actually scummy

Notice how Xtoxm still doesn't say precisely why he thinks I am scummy.

That would be because I've already addressed them at length in other posts. What I didn't address before (the "scum are flip floppers" bit), I addressed in the rest of the paragraph which you chose not to include. Way to keep up the misrepresentation and now outright lies.

First, you complain about me using AtE?

Second, yes, you addressed them in earlier posts. That you still think so is making me think if confirmation bias is at work...DY is scum, therefore everything he says is scummy. DY just said something else scummy, so he must be scum.

Third, I chose not to include the rest of the paragraph because it was a separate thought on your part (hence the transition of "Also..."), and because I actually agreed with you on that second part, so I saw no need to address it.

And I consider calling someone a liar to be a very serious charge. If you're not prepared to back that up, drop it now, because otherwise, that is really offensive.

[DarthYoshi]

DarthYoshi isn't even doing the first part, so.

I have a finite amount of time I can devote to mafia, and much of it lately has been spent defending against Vordark's cases. I've been pressing my arguments against Xotxm, and I am noticing after getting called out and voted on for lots of active lurking, you're actually starting to be a bit more active.

Do you agree with Krazy's assessment that I am piggy-backing on Vordark?

I think you've been letting him do the vast majority of the work. I've been saying this for a while now.

Note that DarthYoshi does not say he removed his vote because he no longer found Krazy scummy. DarthYoshi says he removed his vote because not doing so would have made him look bad. This is because DarthYoshi is more worried about how he appears than he is about finding scum. This is because he is scum.

That is because I think it is scummy, or at the least anti-town, to leave a vote on someone who has reacted positively to the pressure of the vote.

(PEdit: Yeah, Ythan answered that.)

OK, so did your vote help you to determine Krazy's alignment? How so?

See above.

I'll try to be more active now, the text walls kind of set me off this game.

Sorry 'bout that. I'll try to knock it off.

@Vordark: With people getting turned away by our walls, I'm going to do my best to keep this brief. There is misrepping happening on both sides, I apologize for my part in that. The reason I pointed out what you said (and I know you probably won't like this on a semantic level, sorry) is because it is in the present tense--"I agree with none of this here, etc." And you are not giving reasons for your present opinion. You gave reasons in the past, and but now, at this point, it just looked like you were taking it as assumed. Hence my worry about confirmation bias. I wasn't lying. And I don't appreciate it when people say that I do.

[DarthYoshi]

DarthYoshi: Reading him in ISO, there's tons of scum motivation for his post history. First off, in post #3, all the questions are aimed in a way to cast suspicion on the people involved.

Town should suspicious of everyone at the outset because there are so few clues as to alignment (barring being a mason or a similar role—clearly not an issue in this setup). Are you saying that there were/are people that early in the game that I should have been giving a pass on?

There and in later posts he's very much keeping all his options open and not saying anything of who's scum, just pointing out anti-town behavior.

Anti-town behavior can be indicative of scum alignment. And FWIW, I’ve been beating the Xtoxm-is-scum drum for quite a while now.

And how exactly is keeping options open and being open-minded indicative of alignment?

There are tons of other points I agree with but am too tired to find right now from Vordark/Iamausername, but let's just say that I'm pretty sure this guy is scum.

Read: I’m just going to sheep from the one person actually doing the legwork to get you lynched. For me apparently being your most voteworthy scumread in the game, this is an awfully weak case.

Also, chalk me up as not being in favor of a massclaim. I suck at math, but if this setup could be broken by a D1 massclaim, no way it would have been approved.

[DarthYoshi]

You were not just "being suspicious of everyone", you just made questions that hinted at scumminess but didn't follow up on whether or not you found them scummy or not. It is very scum-motivated to cast suspicion on as wide a range as possible, as that way it's much easier to manipulate on whom to pick for the (mis)lynch. Even better when it's combined with hedging like yours - as far as I can tell the only person you've said is scummy is xtoxm, and that is for lurking and other reasons that came after your vote.

I initially thought ConSpiracy might be scummy as well, and said as much when I voted for him. My read has since changed. If you want other suspects from me, atm I think that probably either you or Umbrage is scum, but not probably not both.

If I think someone is scummy, believe me when I say I'll keep following up on the questions that I ask.

Not voting: Abelcain, Quaroath

Why do you guys not have a vote out? There's no excuse for not having one out this deep into D1.

Regfan, you get a pass because you replaced in, but I'd like to see a vote from you sooner rather than later.

@ConSpiracy: In 1-2 sentences each, what are your reads on Umbrage and Snake Eyes?

@Implosion: It be time for some prods? Game is slowing down quite a bit.

[DarthYoshi]

I feel like this game is stalling some whilst this Regfan/Iam/Umbrage triangle keeps jabbering. (As an aside, I was hesitant about getting a read on Regfan before he voted, but his entry so far looks pretty townish.) 1 week to deadline, folks.

@Krazy: Any particular reason why your vote remains on ConSpiracy? It seems like a somewhat outdated vote from my perspective.

@Abelcain and Quaraoth: Please put some votes out, like, now.

@Xtoxm: You’ve picked up your prod, some content would be nice.

Will be re-reading Abelcain in light of Regfan’s scumread on him. If I have time to do a full ISO, I will.

[DarthYoshi]

I don't have a lot of time atm, am currently procrastinating on a paper due tomorrow, but I have a couple quick things to say in response to Iam's ISO. Not going to respond to all of it, but a few things need mentioning--

Also, regarding his Krazy vote: "it would have been scummy to leave my vote on a player who was now being pro-town." Why would a town player be thinking about their own actions in terms of whether or not they are scummy? There's no reason for it. This is not a thing that a town player would say.

It is something someone who is in an anti-town faction would do, because it is bad for town. So yeah, it would be scummy. That doesn't mean I was doing it for appearance's sake.

DarthYoshi responds to my charge that he is not scumhunting by whining that he can't because all his time has been taken up arguing with Vordark.

This is just offensive.

Oh, woe is DarthYoshi, he still can't do any scumhunting, because now he has to defend himself against Snake Eyes too.

This too. Stop.

because it's not in his interest to point out when townies are town. Because he wants to lynch townies. Because he's scum.

(As an aside, I was hesitant about getting a read on Regfan before he voted, but his entry so far looks pretty townish.)

Finally,

FoS: Quaraoth.

You've done a lot of promising content for us during D1 rather than actually delivering said content. No vote out is likewise suspicious. I like where my vote is, but I'm growing more suspicious of you.

Will post my thoughts on Abelcain after I'm done with my paper.

[DarthYoshi]

Meant to add on this:

when I voted DY it was just voting for one of the 4 people that hadn't given me any town inclinations

Iamusername, what say you to this tidbit?

[DarthYoshi]

Lurker = easy target, easy vote. And five votes for a lurker when there are more suspicious players is a joke.

This is not the only element of the case against him. People have been pointing out more than lurking in their ISOs of him. What exactly about his play is giving you a town read? Come to think of it, why do you have such a strong townread on Abelcain as well?

CS's posts, in particular his replies to mine regarding DathYoshi, are serious chainsaws and pushing an easy wagon. For example, in CS's long post (#299), he offers a chainsaw of Umbrage against myself, SE and Ythan, he offers a chainsaw of DY against me, then finally pushes a vote of xtoxm based on lurking and, wait for it, another chainsaw for DY.

I'm calling DarthYoshi, ConSpiracy and Umbrage scum, in order of relative certainty. I think there's an outside chance Umbrage is just tunneling town, but either way I think he deserves a vig shot tonight when DY flips scum.

This might be the least helpful bit of scumhunting so far in the game. You’re going to call the scumteam as a conclusion to a previous paragraph that consists entirely of associative tells before anyone flips? Rly?

This xtoxm wagon advanced much faster than I'd expect a wagon on anything but obvscum to go. Coupled with the lurking town vibe I'm getting off him, I'm inclined to believe scum are pushing it.

Your warrant for claiming that scum are driving the Xtoxm wagon is because people hopped onto it so fast as of late, but CS and I are your two leading scumspects, and we’ve been voting Xtoxm for a while. Can’t have it both ways, mate. And one of those quick votes—Abelcain’s—you basically dismiss out of hand in #419 for being ‘null.’ Okay, voting for a lurker may be null in a vacuum, but you're ignoring the whole picture. For instance, when did AC vote for Xtoxm? After a couple of players already laid the groundwork to do so, which would plausibly make jumping onto the wagon safer and easier. To use Regfan’s scale, if anything, this would be, say, an S1 scumtell.

This was the main thrust of the argument, to which he says nothing. No explanation for why it is that he thinks Snake is scum, or why he thinks Umbrage is scum. All he responds to a somewhat facetious closing remark with a statement that's totally unrelated to the main issue here.

I cited RL obligations as to why I didn’t respond to everything in your ISO. If you think that really is indicative of alignment, let me know.

In short, I doubted that the SE/Umbrage quarrel was a bus. The Umbrage wagon petered out pretty quick, it wasn’t like SE would have had a ton to gain on D1 by continuing to bus Umbrage, since bussing doesn’t reap rewards until a flip happens. And, FWIW, if I just wanted to paint anyone as scummy, then I would have manufactured some reason to say I saw their interactions as indicative of a bus. Surprise surprise, I didn’t, and I’m not.

Re: Abelcain—this post is already long enough, and I addressed one of my issues with AC’s play earlier (his hop onto the Xtoxm wagon) so I’m going to keep it brief—I think he has been trying to appear helpful to town without actually being altogether that helpful. Some of the things that Regfan is noting as town tells—like joining the discussion on the setup/massclaim speculation—I don’t see as a town tell. It is partly why I said what I said regarding the massclaim—if the setup could truly be broken via D1 massclaim, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. So, a scum could join in that discussion, appear helpful to town, all the while knowing that there is no significant risk to having to concoct a fakeclaim because town would realize that a massclaim wouldn’t crack the game open. You take that material out, and the only substantive content he’s offered as of late are a pair of ISOs. His latest post (#407) has some content, but also includes stuff like the retort to Umbrage that seems to care more about digging at issues of personality rather than alignment. He's currently my #2 suspect after Xtoxm.

In any case, I remain fine with my vote where it is. Xtoxm showed no interest in scumhunting well before he gave off signs of being bored or fed up with the game. He picked up his prod immediately but still contributed next to nothing.

Finally,

As for what this makes DY, originally I thought xtoxm being scum would mostly clear DY, but Regfan makes a good point that if they're both scum, as unlikely as it is to have 2 leading scumwagons, then xtoxm's vanilla claim and giving up makes sense.

How exactly is it a good point when you admit how far-fetched the scenario really is to have two leading wagons on scum?

Quaraoth—sorry to hear about your wife, man, that’s awful. I hope she’s okay. I kinda feel like a dick for FoSing you.

And, this thread needs more Ythan.

[DarthYoshi]

You're completely right here. Scum could join that discussion even though they knew that there was no way it would be approved if that was a viable strategy. But so could town. If you're trying to use my contributions to this subject as a scumtell, please look into the other people who discussed the setup as well (like Regfan, Umbrage, Snake Eyes, ConSpiracy, Krazy, etc.)

Sure, but I also think that those other players have, to varying degrees, shown much more interest in scumhunting than you have. It isn’t just that scum could join the discussion, it is that you’ve demonstrated what comes across a clear pattern of behavior of appearing to help without doing much actual heavy lifting.

Given the number of games on this site played with a setup with those numbers, it's bound to happen from time to time. Improbability =/= impossibility.

This is infinitely regressive. I have a not-impossible chance of being struck by lightning right now because I’m writing this from the roof of my apartment building. So, should I base my next series of decisions on that singular possibility? Or, I have a not-impossible chance of winning the lottery, so I might as well buy the Ferrari I have my eye on. See where I’m going with this? On D1, we should be exploring the most likely avenues for finding scum, not the most improbable.

Can you come up with a better/more likely motive why Xtoxm claimed so early?

I’m not psychic, but I’ll give it a shot—the players with town reads on Xtoxm called him “lazy town” (or similar). Claiming that early is something that lazy town would do, so it allows him to stay in character.

The rest of this post (#427) from AC is another good example of offering lots of words without actually helping the town—he seems more interested in arbitrating what honestly looks more like a personality dispute between Umbrage and Vordark rather than anything that is going to tell us diddley shit about alignment.

@Iam: I thought Umbrage might be scummy because of scumhunting mostly on SE while keeping his vote safely tucked away on Quaraoth. I thought SE might be scummy for similar reasons that I suspect AC—a general lack of desire to help significantly advance the gamestate.

[DarthYoshi]

Sorry I haven't been around. I've been V/LA, but since the game was in Night, I sent the mod a PM instead of posting in-thread. I'm back now.

Initial thoughts (especially in light of Quaraoth's flip):
-I don't think either of the remaining PRs should claim, a guilty result notwithstanding.

-I think AC needs to be much more heavily scrutinized. He and Quaraoth were the only original players who didn't have votes out two weeks into D1 (Regfan didn't either, but as I noted, he's a replacement, and in any case, my read on him is currently neutral-leaning-town). Given when and how AC joined the Xtoxm wagon, I have to think that if there was scum on the wagon, he is the best candidate. Additionally, I think it is interesting that Quaraoth saw the need to defend AC from Umbrage's scumslip case, because honestly, the case on me was stronger than Umbrage's reason, IMO. So why would Quaraoth see the need to defend AC from an attack that most of the town wasn't buying?

-That being said, (and this is sorta in response to Krazy's initial reactions in #484) I'm not sure Quaraoth's vote of Umbrage necessarily clears Umbrage as obvtown either. It looks to me like Quaraoth was pulling the reliable scum tactic of not being on either major wagon, lest its target flip town. And in the unlikely event that Umbrage was lynched and flipped scum, Quaraoth could reap the towncred, so win-win for Quaraoth. Umbrage is probably town, but I'm not ready to firmly put him on my list of town reads. On a similar note, Ythan, why should we be lynching Umbrage?

-Quaraoth not really interacting with Ythan during D1 is actually pretty interesting, in part because Ythan has (for me, at least) been a tough player to read so far.

-If or when Vordark or SE decide to update their cases on me with new material, I'm happy to respond. For the moment, their reasons for voting me seem to be completely recycled from D1.

Vote: Abelcain.

[DarthYoshi]

Godspeed, ConSpiracy.

You're going to congratulate the vig like that? Scummy.

@Yoshi, do yo think Vordark is misguided town or mafia attempting to cause a ML on you?
@Yoshi, Apart from Abelcains lack of vote can you summarize the reasoning behind why you think Abelcain is mafia? I know why I do but I want to hear what your thoughts are.

Regarding Vordark--I'm honestly not sure. The zeal with which he has gone after me leads me to think he is town, but then he turns around and makes comments like "Can we lynch DY and company tomorrow?" which comes across as just trying to tee up a future mislynch. If you forced me to choose, I'd probably tell you he's town, but I'm not very sure about that read.

Regarding Abelcain--the following is from my #426:

I think he has been trying to appear helpful to town without actually being altogether that helpful. Some of the things that Regfan is noting as town tells...You take that material out, and the only substantive content he’s offered as of late are a pair of ISOs. His latest post (#407) has some content, but also includes stuff like the retort to Umbrage that seems to care more about digging at issues of personality rather than alignment.

(end quote)

Basically, I think AC has tried to keep up appearances but has shown very little interest in scumhunting or otherwise helping the town. Outside of contributing to some general theory discussions, the amount of actual content he has contributed is little relative to his number of posts. I think you demonstrated that yourself in your ISO, but you somehow came away thinking he was more townish than you first thought.

Additionally, I think Quaraoth defending AC from a relatively weak vote from Umbrage is pretty fishy--why defend AC when AC is clearly not going to be the day's lynch? Earning towncred for opposing a mislynch only works if the mislynch occurs and the lynchee flips town. Which makes me think Quaraoth had other reasons for defending AC unbidden against a weak vote--namely, that they're scumbuddies.

AC also basically ignored my vote on him...which, I dunno how much to read into that quite yet, but imo, innocents are generally more vocal about defending themselves rather than just ignoring votes on them.

[DarthYoshi]

@DY, you're right I haven't defended myself.

This is because I don't see anything to defend.

For the most part, you seem to think I'm scum because I haven't contributed much content to the thread and because Quaroath defended me.

I know I haven't been contributing a whole lot, I'm not going to deny it

. Personal reasons that have no place in this thread have been making it difficult for me to spend a lot of time on this game the way I did in earlier games, and I'm honestly trying to get more into it. As for Quaroath defending me, I don't know what I'm supposed to say. The guy was scum. He was trying to buddy up to me. I'm not going to defend him because he was scum.

Emphasis mine. You say there isn't anything to defend, but then concede my accusation.

Your no-lynch suggestion is interesting...does anyone here who sucks less at math than me think it is viable as well? Krazy hinted that it might, but there would be some swinginess with the PRs. That being said, this is another example, I feel, of you contributing through general theory discussions rather than actual scumhunting.

BTW--I have every right to "bitch" at you for your vote, because you shouldn't need prompting twice a week from deadline to have your damn vote out. The case on Xtoxm was being made for a while, and you took your sweet time. To me, that says scum.

I've been re-reading the case against Yoshi more and more over throughout today and it seems to hold ground. Although his interaction with Quaroth comes out null, I find the way he was constantly attacking Iamusernames logic thoughout yesterday to be extremely off-putting to say the least. He was attempt to unverify Iamusernames suspicion against him by attacking the lack of content that Iamusername posted. With that said:

Vote: DarthYoshi

This vote is atrocious. You're put off by someone pointing out the lack of reasoning behind a vote on them? WTF? Srsly, that's what I see here--you're voting me because I pointed out that Iam wasn't putting a real case on me. Which, for the longest time, HE WASN'T. I can't defend myself against a case that doesn't exist other than to point out that the case doesn't exist. Your reasons are all from D1 play, so why weren't you voting for me then?

And, you vote for me after saying that Abel's No-Lynch idea contains "great amounts of logic." Then why aren't you voting for a no-lynch?

And when that's on the heels of putting me at L-2, the vote looks even worse.

You just lost serious towncred in my book.

[DarthYoshi]

Mod and all: I will be LA through Sunday. I should still be able to post here and there, but it may not be as frequent.

[DarthYoshi]

I think on the basis of AC's last post, a no-lynch is probably preferable to having the HT claim today. However, if one of the PRs is whacked tonight, what do the no-lynch advocates see as the contingency plan for that?

@Krazy: A second suspect from me? Probably SE, I'm getting bad ju-ju from the heavy amounts of active lurking he has been doing lately.

[DarthYoshi]

This game is slowing way the hell down again. Ythan, Vordark, SE, et al, let's look alive.

I can't believe I'm saying this on the basis of my #1 scumread's argument, but I actually see the logic behind a no-lynch today if we think we will otherwise be in mylo in a day or so. I'm still thinking it over--I'm not fully convinced yet, since I've been brainwashed with the "town should always lynch unless it's mylo" argument, but I'm trying to keep an open mind here.

[DarthYoshi]

Something I've been thinking, wanna run it by y'all--

If we no-lynch today and both PRs survive to tomorrow, let's agree on which PR we want to claim first, then have everyone post at least once before the second PR claims, that way scum can only try to claim/CC one PR at a time--that way, even if we mislynch on one PR, we get guaranteed scum the following day, and town makes it to a three-person LyLo.

What say y'all?

And, srsly, let's like, get along. This game has made me all sorts of sad panda.

[DarthYoshi]

@AC: Massclaim would accomplish that, too. The reason I suggested this was so that we didn't get CC's for both PRs simultaneously, as this game seems to have a tendency to get paralyzed easily.

[DarthYoshi]

Picking up prod. I really don't have a lot to add. It looks like SE is flaking, so unless there is any other major reason not to, let's just go ahead and hammer no-lynch already, town.

[DarthYoshi]

Alright then.

Claim: Hider Tracker.

Vote: Amrun.

Discuss.

[DarthYoshi]

^This.

Iamusername hid behind Quaraoth N1. That is why I did not claim on D2. If I had a guilty on Snake Eyes, I would have claimed.

While ScumAbel is still a possibility, I decided to include an unexplained vote of my other main suspect (SE/Amrun) to see what happened. Amrun did not disappoint. Her #675 is bad, bad, bad. Not only is she voting an un-CCed PR in a situation where it is ABSOLUTELY optimal play for town to CC a PR, because it guarantees a scum lynch before LyLo, but she also role claims when there is absolutely no need to, for two reasons--first, it is one vote, not a wagon. But second, EVERYONE at this point is going to claim VT, as I am the last living PR. This move reeks of panicked scum--notice how her immediate assumption (which she admits) is that I had a guilty on her. Who automatically assumes that in a game with this setup? Scum.

And, as the cherry on top, she has yet to unvote me despite posting again, despite the reality that at this point, I am confirmed town.

Amrun is mafia. Let's lynch her.

(BTW, Umbrage, stop whining your "I-told-you-so's" and start scumhunting. We've got six unknown players. Two are scum. Go.)

PEdit: AC has indeed posted, and declined to CC.

[DarthYoshi]

I refuse to believe that Amrun thought that DY was claiming a guilty on her. She claims she read the game a few days ago, and even with fading memory she would have noticed the three-death N1 and the discussion we had about if the HT should claim if he had anyone other than Quaroath or CS. I don't think anyone else thought DY was implying that she was the hider target with that vote.

QFT. Abel, if you're bussing, it's a hell of a bus.

Amrun is right that me having a guilty on her is 100% impossible, but for completely the wrong reasons. Any sane player in my slot would have claimed with a guilty on D2 with a scum already dead, or at the very least crumbed the result by pushing a Snake Eyes lynch HARD. I did neither. Her explanation of why she assumed I had a guilty on her is terrible. The real reason she thought I had a guilty on her? Cuz she's scumz.

Also, this from her #679:

But if it was a misunderstanding, I will happily move my vote to Abelcain.

= appeasement. In spades.

*waves hand in Jedi-like manner* voting for Amrun will be sufficient.

[DarthYoshi]

Hey, y'all, Umbrage's vote was L-1 (and Umbrage, next time you do that, please say that it is L-1. Kthx.) Since I am basically NK bait at this point, I would respectfully ask that nobody swing the hammer until I have the chance to post some final thoughts on the gamestate. I should have time to do that later today.

[DarthYoshi]

Okay. At this point, pending her Vordark case, I am fine with someone hammering Amrun. Here’s the key—Amrun is, I am positive, smart enough to know that scum fakeclaiming HT in this situation would be an awful move, because it guarantees a scum lynch before LyLo. So, I think she had to know that my claim was truthful when she made it, because literally every other single player in the game had declined to CC me by that point, and she did not immediately unvote.

If Amrun flips scum, I think her most likely partner is one of Pod Person/AC/Krazy (in no particular order of likelihood). I’d actually be unsurprised if, at this point, ScumAmrun would bus a partner, especially when she is so loudly proclaiming that she would do no such thing, as if we were to lynch one of her cases and they flip town, she’d be going into death stew first thing come LyLo tomorrow. Pod Person has so far not really bothered with commenting on Amrun’s behavior, which I don’t like. I could see the AC/Amrun cross-voting being a mutual bus/distancing attempt. And if Amrun flips scum, Regfan is probtown.

As for Krazy…eesh. I REALLY don’t like how he has basically avoided commenting at all on either Amrun’s slip-up or Pod Person’s Quar-assocation arguments against him. Re-reading, I think the speculation about Ythan voting Umbrage is unhelpful, if Ythan were trying to crumb a Detective result, he did so really badly, because he took his sweet time voting Umbrage. Plus, the most recent two times he interacts with Amrun are to ask her fairly innocuous questions (what’s your Regfan read? What’s your Vordark case?), and at least with the Regfan query, I don’t think Amrun answers. All in all, Krazy’s D3 play has moved him from being a town read to a neutral read, if Amrun flips town, or a scum read, if Amrun flips scum.

Umbrage has been tough to read for me. My gut says he’s town, but he’s done some slightly scummy-ish things that I can’t tell are indicative of personality or alignment. I find myself agreeing with a lot of his statements about Amrun, but he only just now voted for her, which I’d like an explanation for.

If, by some freak accident, Amrun flips town, I think the remaining scumteam is probably hidden somewhere in Regfan/Umbrage/AC (also not in any particular order of likelihood).

The town may now hammer away, though if y’all want to wait for Amrun’s Vordark case, cool.

I will be V/LA tomorrow

, but in the event that there isn’t a hammer, I’ll be back and participating again sometime Monday.

[DarthYoshi]

I held my fire about this in the dead QT, but...this was a really unpleasant game to play in for me. Not because I was wagoned--I did indeed purposely try to appear a bit scummy, but I thought after a point that it was blatantly obvious to anyone really reading the thread that Vordark and I were two bickering townies--but the sheer amounts of vitriol that were in this game, and what a lot of people seemed to be quarrel over were personality differences, not alignment differences. I resisted the temptation to replace out several times.

That being said--while I really don't have that many regrets about my D1/D2 play, as I did avoid both the lynch and the NK, I do take full responsibility for my horrid D3 play when I became confirmed town. Unfortunately, I couldn't be around more to try to take more of a leadership role, and I was too eager to just get Amrun lynched and be done with it. Lesson learned.

Glad this game is over.

Imp, thanks for modding. I know I'm ripping on not having a good time and whatnot, but none of that is on you. You did a good job here.